He's not pseudointellectual he is learning right now this is how he learns
Guys I probably shouldnt post this but I found a pic of asoul irl and I don't know if I can support him any more he is quite perverted looking
I kinda wanna post it but I don't wanna get banned 
Nah, the tail end of last night was him saying he did the research and implying he read the very short Wikipedia article, but then asked questions that were directly answered in the last section of the article. He then says it's not his fault and that our examples/questions were bad when they're the canonical intro to philosophy high school class, first day on ethics examples and questions. He's learning nothing because he puts no effort into learning.
At least when you're serious and not just trolling you put in actual effort.
as an abstraction it is useful to consider mathematics as something outside of humans that exists independently of humans, because assuming that lets you do better mathematics. so i usually i dont criticize that. does mathematics actually "exist" outside of humans? depends on your definition of exist. do these claims convey any extra information other than "i define the word "exist" such that that mathematics and other metaphysical concepts exist outside of humans"?
i criticize language differently than math because while humans apparently can implement rigorous mathematical theory in practice, there isnt a particular reason to expect humans will implement your particular language theory in practice. but maybe i am wrong and the structure of the human brain exposes a rigorous language theory. more likely, i think you are retroactively fitting language theories to empirical human use of language. which is good, and useful, unless you start pretending humans use language because the metaphysical language is that way. to me that seems like confusing cause and effect.
Is it the one of the fat dude in the NADotA hat?
Don't worry I flagged my own post. Would self ban myself if I could
also, i bring up zfc + axioms as a specific instance where i might criticize the "existence" of mathematics. mathematics doesnt exist, so you should just worry about picking the right axioms to do better mathematics. i dont care if choice, or the continuum hypothesis is true, and its not going to break mathematics, so go ahead and add it to zfc if you like if it will help you do mathematics. and if category theory is stronger than zfc, doing math in there is fine too insofar as we have good reason to believe it is consistent. which i will presume we do have good reason to believe.
"does math exist outside of human brains" sounds to me like one of those stupid questions not really worth thinking about then. choose whichever answer helps you sleep at night, and doesnt cause confusion. youre not accessing any truth value since you didnt rigorously define "exist".
actually, you said something to the effect that you reject most things having truth values. okay, you can do that, but that seems like a degenerate philosophy because what are you supposed to do in life if you wont take things as true? clearly we can just pretend things are true, given that we already do in practice. this seems fine to me until we encounter a contradiction. but if you encounter a contradiction in whats true or not true i think this is more likely to be a malfunction in your brain than an aspect of the world or of metaphysics.
also i think you are projecting things onto me i never said. i never claimed i had any fresh ideas about morality. i was just talking about my sentiments. nyte kept asking me questions, so i answered them.
This is literally not true. Both realist and anti-realists can recover all of ZFC.
I cited the definition: as Platonic ideals
Yes, they provide claims about how justification of mathematical objects work and provide a shortcut around the anti-realist approach of constructivism. It's essential to the justification of adding extrinsic set-theoretic axioms to ZFC, which is already justified through the iterative conception of sets.
It can be shown that any formal languages that have the grammar to express ZFC have an isomorphism between their conception and ZFC if you can add extrinsic axioms. This was proved by Zermelo's quasi-categoricity theorem.
The point is the human brain can construct rigorous formal languages in first and second order logic which can then describe pre-existing mathematic objects.
Nope. The object realism also presupposes that the formalizations are real. See Gödel's What is Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis.
The second clause contradicts the first one. The notion of better axioms to do better mathematics presupposes that the mathematical structures and objects defining better mathematics already exist.
Wrong. The existence of mathematical objects changes how we must formulate and justify the language we use to describe the mathematical objects. It also changes whether we're restricted to potential infinities or have access to actual infinities.
Yes I did.
No, I said most statements outside of formal languages cannot have truth-values
This is extreme evidence of how uninformed you are. You can access other epistemological frameworks and still make use of moral judgments, but you can't claim primacy of one over the other.
This doesn't make sense and is irrelevant.
You said that all human ideas come from the human brain. You said we can add axioms to ZFC if they're useful for guaranteeing truth-values for statements about mathematical objects. This means that those objects are both real and are not constructed by humans, but independent of human thought.
I'm not talking about morality. I'm explaining how your "common-sense" notions that everything comes from the brain contradict other parts of your "philosophy" like choosing axioms to add based on usefulness. This is why you actually need to explain and justify your bullshit, incoherent, inconsistent statements
ah okay: a simpler claim:
language theory is you fitting a model of language on top of empirical observation of language. that is well and good unless you are confused that your language model causes empirical language.
physics is you fitting a model of reality on top of empirical observation of reality. that is well and good unless you are confused that your physics model causes empirical reality.
mathematics is you doing mechanical operations in accordance with axioms and logic. a computer can do it too in principle, but human mathematicians are equipped with various heuristics and internal models that make them better than computers at math research. for now. you could write a computer program that enumerates all the provably true statements or determines the system is inconsistent. it just wouldn't halt.
You said that all human ideas come from the human brain. You said we can add axioms to ZFC if they're useful for guaranteeing truth-values for statements about mathematical objects. This means that those objects are both real and are not constructed by humans, but independent of human thought.
i dont see it.
im a human. i choose axioms to add to my math. i recommend you do it based on usefulness.
Yes, and the usefulness criteria is because it gives truth-values to whatever set-theoretic statements you want to have truth-values. Thus, you presuppose that these objects have truth-values and are independent of human thought. Read the Gödel citation I provided
whaaa? i give the set theoretic statements truth values because i want them have truth values. to give them truth values i pick good axioms.
why does it follow that the truth values are independent of my thought? havent i been saying they are contingent on my thought the whole time?
i will read the citation now.
And you want them to have truth-values because giving them truth-values allows for you to have "better mathematics." This presuppose that the things you want to have truth-values exist as objects independent of humans, because you make a claim that some statement should be true or false, rather than undecidable.
It also implies that everything you can access through the "better mathematics" is a real object independent of humans, because it is not constructed within the axioms you currently have.
Gödel very famously proved all of this in the citation I gave.
You have, and that contradicts your statement that we should add extrinsic axioms
https://www.google.com/search?q="What+is+Cantor's+Continuum+Hypothesis"+1947+godel
i cant even find the thing you want me to read.
"mathematics is all in your head. so, you should add axioms if you think they are useful."
what are you taking issue with?
i merely assert the weaker statement that it is useful to regard some statements as true or false, rather than undecideable. does that make them "actually true" or "actually false"? if you want them to be. "usefulness" in this context doesnt exist without human brains either.